text:
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2005-06 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and Requests for 2006 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska, 17574-17582 [05-6816]
Download as PDFAgencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 17574-17582] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 05-6816] [[Page 17573]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part IV Department of the Interior ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fish and Wildlife Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 CFR Part 20 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2005-06 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and Requests for 2006 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules [[Page 17574]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 RIN 1018-AT76 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2005-06 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and Requests for 2006 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2005-06 hunting season. We annually prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, describes the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2005-06 duck hunting seasons, requests proposals from Indian tribes that wish to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands, and requests proposals for the 2006 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska. Migratory game bird hunting seasons provide hunting opportunities for recreation and sustenance, aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds, and permit harvests at levels compatible with migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions. DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2005-06 duck hunting seasons by May 1, 2005. Following later Federal Register Notices, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 30, 2005, and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 30, 2005. Tribes must submit proposals and related comments by June 1, 2005. Proposals from the Co-management Council for the 2006 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room 4107, Arlington Square Building, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Proposals for the 2006 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska should be sent to the Executive Director of the Co-management Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503, or fax to (907) 786-3306 or e-mail to email@example.com. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, at: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240, (703) 358-1714. For information on the migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska, contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786-3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Overview Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to ``the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds'' and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) of the Department of the Interior as the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management information for Federal, State, and Provincial Governments, as well as private conservation agencies and the general public. The migratory game bird hunting regulations, located at 50 CFR part 20, are constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation. The process includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on early and late hunting season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. [[Page 17575]] After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State and Federal governments. After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks but never more liberal. Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or species of migratory game birds for 2005-06 in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. For the 2005-06 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose regulations for certain designated members of the avian families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals under Proposed 2005-06 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a description of the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process in the March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618). Regulatory Schedule for 2005-06 This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest, and other information become available. Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two considerations compress the time for the rulemaking process: the need, on one hand, to establish final rules early enough in the summer to allow resource agencies to select and publish season dates and bag limits prior to the beginning of hunting seasons and, on the other hand, the lack of current status data on most migratory game birds until later in the summer. Because the regulatory process is strongly influenced by the times when information is available for consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two segments: early seasons and late seasons (further described and discussed under the Background and Overview section). Major steps in the 2005-06 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the diagram at the end of this proposed rule. All publication dates of Federal Register documents are target dates. All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These headings are: 1. Ducks A. General Harvest Strategy B. Regulatory Alternatives C. Zones and Split Seasons D. Special Seasons/Species Management i. September Teal Seasons ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons iii. Black ducks iv. Canvasbacks v. Pintails vi. Scaup vii. Youth Hunt 2. Sea Ducks 3. Mergansers 4. Canada Geese A. Special Seasons B. Regular Seasons C. Special Late Seasons 5. White-fronted Geese 6. Brant 7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese 8. Swans 9. Sandhill Cranes 10. Coots 11. Moorhens and Gallinules 12. Rails 13. Snipe 14. Woodcock 15. Band-tailed Pigeons 16. Mourning Doves 17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves 18. Alaska 19. Hawaii 20. Puerto Rico 21. Virgin Islands 22. Falconry 23. Other Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete. We will publish final regulatory alternatives for the 2005-06 duck hunting seasons in early June. We will publish proposed early season frameworks in mid-July and late season frameworks in mid-August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 19, 2005, and those for late seasons on or about September 16, 2005. Request for 2006 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska Background The 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) established a closed season for the taking of migratory birds between March 10 and September 1. Residents of northern Alaska and Canada traditionally harvested migratory birds for nutritional purposes during the spring and summer months. The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States recently amended the 1916 Convention and the subsequent 1936 Mexico Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals. The amended treaties provide for the legal subsistence harvest of migratory birds and their eggs in Alaska and Canada during the closed season. On August 16, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 53511) a final rule that established procedures for incorporating subsistence management into the continental migratory bird management program. These regulations, developed under a new co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives, established an annual procedure to develop harvest guidelines for implementation of a spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest. Eligibility and inclusion requirements necessary to participate in the spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska are outlined in 50 CFR part 92. This proposed rule calls for proposals for regulations that will expire on August 31, 2006, for the spring/summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, seasons will open on or after March 11 and close prior to September 1. [[Page 17576]] Alaska Spring/Summer Subsistence Harvest Proposal Procedures We will publish details of the Alaska spring/summer subsistence harvest proposals in later Federal Register documents under 50 CFR part 92. The general relationship to the process for developing national hunting regulations for migratory game birds is as follows: (a) Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Proposals may be submitted by the public to the Co-management Council during the period of November 1-December 15, 2005, to be acted upon for the 2007 migratory bird subsistence harvest season. Proposals should be submitted to the Executive Director of the Co-management Council, listed above under the caption ADDRESSES. (b) Flyway councils. (1) Proposed 2006 regulations recommended by the Co-management Council will be submitted to all Flyway Councils for review and comment. The Council's recommendations must be submitted prior to the Service Regulations Committee's last regular meeting of the calendar year in order to be approved for spring/summer harvest beginning March 11 of the following calendar year. (2) Alaska Native representatives may be appointed by the Co- management Council to attend meetings of one or more of the four Flyway Councils to discuss recommended regulations or other proposed management actions. (c) Service regulations committee. Proposed annual regulations recommended by the Co-management Council will be submitted to the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) for their review and recommendation to the Service Director. Following the Service Director's review and recommendation, the proposals will be forwarded to the Department of the Interior for approval. Proposed annual regulations will then be published in the Federal Register for public review and comment, similar to the annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. Final spring/summer regulations for Alaska will be published in the Federal Register in the preceding fall. Because of the time required for review by us and the public, proposals from the Co-management Council for the 2006 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2005, for Council comments and Service action at the late-season SRC meeting. Review of Public Comments This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2005-06 duck hunting seasons. This proposed rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 2004-05 final frameworks (see August 30, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 52970) for early seasons and September 23, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 57140) for late seasons) and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks for the 2005-06 season. We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this proposed rule. Consolidation of Notices For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice of intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons, the request for tribal proposals, and the request for Alaska migratory bird subsistence seasons with the preliminary proposals for the annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the following personnel: Region 1 (California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164. Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885. Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin)--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056; (612) 713-5432. Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands, South Carolina, and Tennessee)--E. J. Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000. Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)--Diane Pence, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576. Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-8145. Region 7 (Alaska)--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423. Requests for Tribal Proposals Background Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for: (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s); (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits. In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off- reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached [[Page 17577]] agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands. Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not worthy of formal consultation. One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season required by the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members. Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located. Details Needed in Tribal Proposals Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting regulations for the 2005-06 migratory game bird hunting season should submit a proposal that includes: (1) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed regulations; (2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; (3) Methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest (mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.); (4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously impact the migratory game bird resource; and (5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory game bird hunting regulations. A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in which the reservation is located. Tribal Proposal Procedures We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for review by us and the public, Indian tribes that desire special migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2005-06 hunting season should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2005. Tribes should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under the caption Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that request special migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the affected State(s). Public Comments Solicited The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received. Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual regulations during normal business hours at the Service's Division of Migratory Bird Management office in room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules. NEPA Consideration NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document ``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88- 14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian [[Page 17578]] Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES. In a proposed rule published in the April 30, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 21298), we expressed our intent to begin the process of developing a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. We plan to begin the public scoping process in 2005. Endangered Species Act Consideration Prior to issuance of the 2005-06 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents. Executive Order 12866 The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically significant and were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was initially prepared in 1981. This analysis was subsequently revised annually from 1990-96, updated in 1998 and updated again in 2004. It is further discussed below under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act. Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected welfare benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order of $734 to $1,064 million, with a mid-point estimate of $899 million. Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https:// www.migratorybirds.gov. Executive Order 12866 also requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: email@example.com. Regulatory Flexibility Act These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis discussed under Executive Order 12866. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, and 2004. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2004 Analysis was based on the 2001 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between $481 million and $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2004. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https:// www.migratorybirds.gov. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1). Paperwork Reduction Act We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the surveys associated with the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 2/29/2008). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey and assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 11/30/ 2007). The information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the geographical and temporal distribution of the harvest, and the portion it constitutes of the total population. Lastly, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an associated voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels of subsistence take in Alaska. The OMB control number for the information collection is 1018- 0124 (expires 10/31/2006). A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988 The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Takings Implication Assessment In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of [[Page 17579]] property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property. Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211 On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Federalism Effects Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20 Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2005-06 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j. Dated: March 17, 2005. Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Proposed 2005-06 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. At this time, we are proposing no changes from the final 2004-05 frameworks established on August 30 and September 23, 2004 (69 FR 52970 and 57140). Other issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes are contained below: 1. Ducks Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/ Species Management. Only those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below. A. General Harvest Strategy We propose to continue use of adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2005-06 season. AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts, as well as providing a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards (special hunting restrictions are enacted for species of special concern, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails). The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways would be based on the status of mallards and breeding-habitat conditions in central North America (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). We propose to continue the constraint on closed seasons enacted in 2003. This constraint explicitly excludes from consideration closed hunting seasons in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways whenever the mid-continent mallard population is at least 5.5 million. Closed seasons targeted at particular species or populations could still be necessary in some situations regardless of the status of mallards. The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic Flyway would be based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region) and, thus, may differ from that in the remainder of the country. We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways during the 2005-06 season after survey information becomes available in late summer. More information on AHM is located at https:// migratorybirds.fws.gov/mgmt/ahm/ahm-intro.htm. B. Regulatory Alternatives The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM was adopted in 1997. The alternatives remained largely unchanged until 2002, when we (based on recommendations from the Flyway Councils) extended framework dates in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, and changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time we stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-date extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest prior to considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501). For 2004-05, we are proposing to maintain the same regulatory alternatives that were in effect last year (see accompanying table for specifics of the proposed regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as ``RES'' for the restrictive, ``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. We will announce final regulatory alternatives in early June. Public comments will be accepted until May 1, 2005, and should be sent to the address under the caption ADDRESSES. C. Zones and Split Seasons In 1990, because of concerns about the proliferation of zones and split seasons for duck hunting, a cooperative review and evaluation of the historical use of zone/split options was conducted. This review did not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zone/split configurations was poor because of unreliable response variables, the lack of statistical tests to differentiate between real and perceived changes, and the absence of adequate [[Page 17580]] experimental controls. Consequently, guidelines were established to provide a framework for controlling the proliferation of changes in zone/split options. The guidelines identified a limited number of zone/ split configurations that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals. In 1996, the guidelines were revised to provide States greater flexibility in using their zone/split arrangements. The next open season for changes to zone/split configurations will be in 2006, for the 2006-2010 period. In order to allow sufficient time for States to solicit public input regarding their selections of zone/ split configurations in 2006, we will finalize the guidelines during the 2005 late-season regulations process. For the 2006-2010 period, we propose to continue with the guidelines used for 2001-2005. These are as follows: The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the regular duck season: 1. A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for the regular duck season. 2. Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and split seasons for ducks. 3. Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will be allowed for any grandfather arrangement, and changes are limited to the open season. 4. Once a zone/split option is selected during an open season, it must remain in place for the following 5 years. For the 2006-2010 period, any State may continue the configuration used in 2001-2005. If changes are made, the zone/split-season configuration must conform to one of the following options: 1. Three zones with no splits, 2. Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or 3. Two zones with the option for 2-way split seasons in one or both zones. At the end of 5 years after any changes in splits or zones, States will be required to provide the Service with a review of pertinent data (e.g., estimates of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.). This review does not have to be the result of a rigorous experimental design, but nonetheless should assist us in ascertaining whether major undesirable changes in harvest or hunter activity occurred as a result of split and zone regulations. D. Special Seasons/Species Management iii. Black ducks. We continue to encourage the development of assessment procedures that can be used to inform black duck harvest management in the United States. We appreciate the progress being made by the Service's Division of Migratory Bird Management and the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils in determining optimal harvest rates and how these compare with our desire to meet population goals. We reiterate that any proposed changes to black duck hunting regulations at this time be accompanied by predicted changes in black duck harvest rates and consider their appropriateness towards meeting management objectives. 4. Canada Geese B. Regular Seasons In the Pacific Flyway, the current status and population trend information for Cackling Canada geese suggest that regulatory changes may be warranted this year. 6. Brant In the Pacific Flyway, the current status and population trend information for Pacific Black Brant suggest that regulatory changes may be warranted this year. 9. Sandhill Cranes During last year's waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting season, a group of hunters in Kansas accidentally shot at some whooping cranes. Two of the whooping cranes from this flock sustained injuries and were subsequently captured and treated by agency and university personnel. One of these birds died soon after capture and the other was transported to a captive-rearing facility in Maryland, however this second bird also died as a result of injuries sustained in the shooting. Service staff are working with staff from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to review this incident and make recommendations to minimize the potential conflicts with whooping cranes and hunting in this area. Pending the outcome of these discussions, regulatory changes for the Mid-Continent Population of sandhill cranes may be proposed this year. BILLING CODE 4310-55-P [[Page 17581]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP05.011 [[Page 17582]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP05.012 [FR Doc. 05-6816 Filed 4-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.


text:
Sure, there are plenty of music streaming services out there, and even ones with amazing shareable playlists, but Songza differentiates by falling right into that sweet spot between Spotify and Pandora. The app's most interesting feature, Concierge, sets up playlists based on day and time, with filters for whatever mood you might be in.
For example, on Wednesday morning, Concierge says that I'm most likely to want to listen to something for Work Or Study, Still Waking Up, or Working Out. If I change the settings to give me music for Late Friday Night, options change to Getting High, Getting Lucky, Nightcap, A Sweaty Dance Party, or Bedtime.
So let's say I'm hypothetically getting lucky… Songza will offer me certain filters for that particular "activity" like Heartfelt, Aggressive, Tongue And Cheek, Smooth, and Mellow. Unfortunately, the Concierge feature which launched in an update last week is only available on iOS and the web right now.
And that's only one part of the app — the part that makes people like me, who aren't up-to-date on music and don't have the energy to explore, seem really awesome when friends come over.
But the other part of the app — Explore — is for those who love the fact that Pandora introduces them to brand new music. Of course, Concierge does the same thing, but the Explore tab really lets you find the best possible music for a specific circumstance.
So let's pose another hypothetical: you're throwing a dinner party. The food's ready, the house is clean, and guests are set to arrive in five minutes. The only thing that isn't prepped is the music, and you know that making a playlist (especially one that's going to make you look like a music connoisseur) is going to take more than the five minutes that you have.
That's where Songza comes in and takes care of all the heavy lifting.
All the music in the app is already a part of curated playlists, set up by what Songza refers to as a network of "music experts." You can browse playlists based on moods (like Angsty, Gloomy, Introspective, Rowdy, Spacey, and Visceral), or even better, you can choose your playlist based on activity.
Songza's list of activities is quite long and varied, and includes stuff like Coming Down After A Party, Between The Sheets, Coding, Driving In The Left Lane, Getting High, Lying Low On A Sunday Afternoon, Making Out, Waking Up On The Right Side Of The Bed, and a whole lot more.
I've been tooling around the the app for about 24 hours, and trying to get a feel for the playlists. I come away from the day knowing that I'll use this again, if only for the ability to match music to mood or activity so quickly. But past that, I'll keep using it simply so I don't end up listening to the same stuff over and over and over again.
Pandora is amazing, but when you're trying to get the music just right for a certain activity, like working or having a quiet cocktail party, there are only so many stations that suit your specific tastes. And then you end up listening to those same stations for the rest of your life until your ears bleed. Spotify, on the other hand, forces a lot of work out of the user. You really need to go out and find what you want and set it up properly.
Songza's offerings change every time you jump into the app, simply based on time and day. But they're also compiled by people who are experts in certain genres and artists. You may have a great Bob Marley inspired playlist, but it won't be as great as a Bob Marley superfan's playlist.
Long story short, I think Songza deserves a spot in the ring with the big boys, especially considering it's free, there are no audio ads, and no monthly limits. But you'd have to try it out to see for yourself.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Discover the vibrant allure of the "Red Angus Cattle Lovers Sun Flower Matching Natural Light Hawaiian Shirt Hitshirtsus" collection at Hitshirtsus store! Embrace the essence of the tropics with these stylish and comfortable shirts featuring eye-catching floral patterns, bold colors, and a touch of paradise.
Material: Crafted from 100% polyester, this shirt offers a luxuriously soft and smooth texture that ensures optimal comfort. It comes with an open collar and circular buttons for added style. Kindly note that there may be a slight discrepancy of 1cm-3cm in the measurements due to manual handling. Also, please note that the color of the shirt might differ slightly from the product images due to the variations in light intensity during photography, caused by the production batch.Color: By design.
- Hawaiian Shirt: from S to 5XL
- Long Sleeve Hawaiian Shirt: from S to 5XL
- Kids' Hawaiian Shirt: from XS to XL
- Hawaiian Shirt
- Long Sleeve Hawaiian Shirt
- Kids' Hawaiian Shirt


text:
Microphone selection and placement is an art. These placement tips can help you get started but there are multiple ways to mike any instrument, and the mics you select will affect the optimal placement for a given application. Some of these microphone-placement suggestions can be used in live applications, as well as for studio recording.
We encourage you to experiment with different techniques and to search the Web and visit your local library or bookstore for books, magazines, instructional videos, and other sources of information.
Grand Piano
Place one microphone above the high strings and one microphone above the low strings. Experiment with distance (the farther back the more room you will capture).
This technique can be used for live and studio applications.
Electric Guitar
Place a dynamic microphone an inch or two away from the speaker of the guitar amplifier. Experiment with exact location. If you are recording an amp with multiple speakers, experiment with each one to see if one sounds better than the others.
Place a condenser microphone approximately six feet away, pointed at the amp. Experiment with distance. Also experiment with inverting the phase of the room microphone to check for phase cancellation and reinforcement. (Select the "fuller"-sounding position.)
To use this technique in a live application, omit the condenser microphone.
Acoustic Guitar
Point a small-diaphragm condenser microphone at the 12th fret, approximately 8 inches away.
Point a large-diaphragm condenser microphone at the bridge of the guitar, approximately 12 inches from the guitar.
Experiment with distances and microphone placement.
Another popular method is using an XY microphone placement with two small-diaphragm condenser microphones. (See drum-overheads photo.)
Bass Guitar (Direct and Speaker)
Plug the electric bass guitar into a passive direct box. Connect the instrument output from the passive direct box to a bass amplifier. Place a dynamic microphone an inch or two away from the speaker and connect it to a StudioLive microphone input. Connect the line output from the passive direct box to a line input on a different channel of the StudioLive.
For recording, place these signals on separate tracks. During mixing, you can blend the direct and amplifier signal to taste.
This technique can also be used in live applications.
Drum Overheads (XY example)
Place two small-diaphragm condenser microphones on an XY stereo-microphone holder (bar). Position the microphones so that each one is at a 45-degree angle, pointed down at the drum kit, approximately 7 or 8 feet above the floor or drum riser. Experiment with height.
This technique can be used in live applications as well.
Snare Drum (top and bottom)
Point a dynamic microphone at the center of the snare, making sure it is placed so that the drummer will not hit it. Place a small-diaphragm condenser microphone under the drum, pointed at the snares.
Experiment with the placement of both microphones. Also experiment with inverting the phase of the bottom microphone.
This technique can be used in live applications.


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Show All Answers
Click the Pay Online button on the home page or click here https://bsaonline.com/OnlinePayment/OnlinePaymentSearch?PaymentApplicationType=10&uid=254.. If this is your first time paying online, you may need to create a new BS&A Online account.
Click on the Employment button on the home page or click here https://mi-clintontownship.civicplus.com/203/Employment.
For questions or information on solid waste collection call GFL Environmental USA Inc. at 844-464-3587. For other issues, call the Department of Public Services at 586-286-9300.
Please click here, to view agendas and minutes for the Board of Trustees, Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), Board of Ethics, Budget Ways & Means Committee, and other commissions and committees.
Click to search the Codified Ordinances of the Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan.
For questions or information on solid waste collection call GFL Environmental USA Inc. at 844-464-3587.
For questions about permits, please contact the Building Department, at 586-286-9323.
Clinton Township Television (CTTV) is broadcast on the following provider channels:COMCAST Channel 5 programs/messagesChannel 12 messages onlyWOW Channel 10 programs/messagesChannel 18 messages onlyAT&T/U-VerseChannel 99 to access CTTV programs and messages only
LivestreamCTTV can be streamed at https://www.clintontownship.com/431/CTTV-Livestream


text:
SAN MATEO, Calif. - October 17, 2007 - Capcom® Entertainment, a leading worldwide developer and publisher of video games, today announced that Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, the riveting sci-fi action shooter, is in development for the PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system and is scheduled to hit in early 2008.
Combining a gripping single player campaign and intense multiplayer modes with support for up to 16 players online, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is an epic gaming masterpiece. Enormous world maps unfold as players battle hostile creatures in blistering weather conditions across vast snow fields and blazing volcanic areas either on foot or in armed, robotic Vital Suits.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition for the PLAYSTATION®3 system will release with a number of specific features not previously available in retail editions of the console version. These include 16 diverse multiplayer maps right out of the box and additional playable characters each with their own unique abilities.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition for the PLAYSTATION®3 system includes the following features -
Frenetic action - Lost Planet is a fast-paced third-person shooter with all the depth, intrigue and intensity of a science fiction classic.
Connect to gamers around the world via PLAYSTATION®Network and participate in a variety of cooperative and versus battles with up to 16 players:
o Elimination - It's every snow pirate for themselves in this death match mode where the victorious are rewarded for the most points earned.
o Team Elimination - You're only as good as your teammates so strategy and cooperation is key in eliminating the opposing side.
o Post Grab - Teams are tasked with capturing and holding as many Posts as possible.
o Fugitive - One player is assigned as the "Fugitive", and he or she will earn points for various actions (staying alive, killing enemies, capturing Posts). Dying deducts points and winning is determined when a maximum total is reached or when the score ticks down to zero.
Foot and Vital Suit based gameplay - Command highly powered VS and weapons not only to help players traverse the treacherous terrain, but to eliminate enemies that lie ahead. Strategically switch between VS and on foot gameplay to best face each situation and challenge.
Vast environments - Snowstorms, arctic winds, towering buildings and mountains of ice are all stunningly realized as battles occur above and below ground, creating a truly immersive and cinematic event of epic proportions.
A premier team of developers - The creators of the critically acclaimed Onimusha® and Devil May Cry® series have come together to create the expansive world of Lost Planet.


text:
A new University of Michigan study in mice suggests that a drug recently approved to fight cancer tumors is also able to reduce the effects of graft-versus-host disease, a common and sometimes fatal complication for people who have had bone marrow transplants.
Plans are under way at U-M for an initial trial of the drug in people as a new way to prevent graft-versus-host disease. Researchers expect to begin a trial within a year.
The U-M scientists tested the effects of the drug SAHA, as well as another member of a group of drugs known as HDAC inhibitors, on key immune system cells called dendritic cells. In mice, both drugs were able to significantly diminish the destructive inflammatory effects that these cells cause in graft-versus-host disease.
Graft-versus-host disease occurs when immune cells in the transplanted bone marrow mount a misguided attack on body tissues. If HDAC inhibitors turn out to be safe and effective in people, they might offer a treatment option preferable to the immunosuppressant drugs used now to treat the disease. These leave people vulnerable to infection and have other significant side effects.
"To make bone marrow transplants more effective, we need better control of the very powerful reactions between the immune systems of the donor and recipient. This study shows how drugs like SAHA regulate those reactions, and takes us a major step closer to bringing this new approach to patients who need transplants," says James L.M. Ferrara, M.D., director of the U-M Combined Bone Marrow Transplant Program and a senior author on the study. Ferrara is also professor of internal medicine and pediatric and communicable diseases at U-M.
"These HDAC inhibitors were thought to just kill cancer cells, but at lower doses, it's possible they can modulate a number of immune diseases," says Pavan Reddy, M.D., the study's lead and corresponding author, and an assistant professor of internal medicine at the U-M Medical School. "The mechanism we have identified in graft-versus-host disease may be involved in autoimmune diseases as well."
Bone marrow stem cell transplants are most commonly used to treat leukemia and lymphoma. By replenishing depleted blood cells, the transplants allow higher doses of chemotherapy to more effectively get rid of cancer cells.
But as many as half of bone marrow transplant recipients develop acute or chronic symptoms of graft-versus-host disease, which can affect the skin, liver and gastrointestinal tract. Reddy calls the disease "the single biggest barrier to bone marrow transplant."
The study suggests a novel way to treat graft-versus-host disease with an already available drug that is stirring considerable interest as an anti-cancer agent. The FDA approved SAHA, marketed under the name Vorinostat, as a treatment for one kind of lymphoma in 2006 and for leukemia in 2007. SAHA is being used off label for other cancers, including lung, brain and colon cancer.
The U-M study adds to a growing body of research suggesting HDAC inhibitors also may be useful tools to reign in misguided immune responses. Researchers elsewhere have recently shown that HDAC inhibitors have been beneficial in animal studies of lupus and inflammatory bowel disease. Other studies suggest the drugs could be useful in regulating the immune response in heart and islet cell transplants.
Research details
The U-M researchers studied the responses of immune system dendritic cells in mice given SAHA and ITF 2357, another new HDAC inhibitor. Dendritic cells are important immune system cells whose varied roles are beginning to be fully understood.
The scientists looked at the two HDAC inhibitors' effects on mouse and human dendritic cells in culture. They found that as they suspected, the drugs acted to diminish the dendritic cells' key role in promoting pro-inflammatory proteins called cytokines. Specifically, the researchers found that the HDAC inhibitors increase the expression of IDO, an enzyme which represses dendritic cell activity.
They tested the HDAC inhibitors in mice bred to display the effects of graft -versus-host disease. When they injected the mice with dendritic cells treated with the drugs, they found the drugs were able to reduce the disease's effects.
The clinical trial: The trial is not yet recruiting patients. For questions and information on the U-M bone marrow transplant program, contact the U-M Cancer AnswerLine, 800-865-1125, .edu
Journal citation: Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 118, no. 7, July 2008.
Funding: National Institutes of Health, Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Development Award, Amy Strelzer Manasevit-National Marrow Donor Program
Additional authors: Yaping Sun, M.D., Ph.D., Elizabeth Weisiger, B.S., Yoshinobu Maeda, M.D., Ph.D., Oleg Krijanovski, M.D., Ph.D., Chelsea Malter, B.S. and Tomorni Toubai, M.D., Ph.D., U-M Department of Internal Medicine; Raimon Duran Struuck, D.V.M., Shawn G. Clouthier, M.S., Isao Tawara, M.D., Ph.D. and Erin Gatza, Ph.D., Department of Pediatrics, U-M Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cen Liu, M.D., Ph.D., University of Florida; Paolo Mascagni, Ph.D., ItalFarmaco S.p.A., Milan, Italy; and Charles A. Dinarello, M.D., University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Michigan Health System. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Cite This Page:


text:
This page in a nutshell: Checkuser can be used to examine user IP address information and other server log data. It is to be used sparingly and only to protect Wikivoyage against disruption, block evasion or spambots. |
This policy supplements but does not replace the Wikimedia Foundation's global checkuser policy at m:CheckUser policy — nothing here may override that policy. |
Checkuser is a tool that is executed by a very few trusted community members. Their tasks are to examine user IP address information and other server log data. The tool is only used to protect Wikivoyage against vandalism and disruption. All data from the tool analysis remain non-public to protect the privacy of users. The checkuser log will be only accessible for the selected checkusers, Ombudsmen, and WMF staff. Administrator rights are not sufficient to access that log. Currently, Wikivoyage does not have local checkusers, so this function is relegated to use by Stewards.
CheckUsers must meet the Wikimedia standard requirements documented at Meta:CheckUser policy.
Reasons for the involvement or notification of the Checkusers include investigations to prevent, or respond to:
- Sock puppetry for the purpose of disruption
- Block evasion
- Spambots
If you think a checkuser investigation is warranted, first consult with an administrator to get a second opinion. Then, go to m:SRCU and make the request from there.
A secondary account used by one person to pose as though they were a second person is called a sockpuppet. Such misleading use of accounts is discouraged on Wikivoyage.
Sockpuppets are usually ignored here, unless the community suspects that a person is using them to be disruptive. In such a case, if the community does find a difficult user to be using multiple accounts, the secondary accounts will be permanently blocked from Wikivoyage. While the primary account may still be allowed to edit, the difficult user's reputation will be tarnished, and will be trusted less by other users—an easy way to avoid this is to just use one account.
Since majority-rule voting is not employed on Wikivoyage, sockpuppets do not present much difficulty to site processes.
Using sockpuppets to get around a block is considered block evasion, and will trigger an immediate and indefinite block of the sock account.


text:
Party Meatballs
What's a party without meatballs?
Kind of like watching a movie without popcorn. Or celebrating a birthday without cake. Or ending a day of skiing without a cup of hot cocoa.
Just not the same, right?
"Pistachio and Pomegranate Meatballs" have party written all over them.
The recipe is from "The Washington Post Cookbook" (Time Capsule Press) edited by Bonnie S. Benwick. The book, of which I received a review copy, is a compilation of favorite recipes published over the past 50 years in the pages of the award-winning newspaper's food section.
These highly seasoned meatballs taste exactly like falafel — except they're made with meat and you don't have to fry them.


text:
Consider a field redefinition $$ \phi \rightarrow \phi' = \phi+\lambda \phi^2 $$ Find the Feynman rules for this theory and work out the $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering amplitude at tree level (The result should be zero).
$$ \mathcal{L}_0 = -\frac{1}{2}(\partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi + m^2 \phi^2) \implies \text{EOM: } \Box\phi - m^2\phi=0 $$ Preforming the field redefinition on the Lagrangian I obtain: $$ \mathcal{L}_0 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}'= \mathcal{L}_0 -2\lambda\phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - 2 \lambda^2 \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi -\lambda m^2 \phi^3 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} m^2 \phi^4 $$ I then rewrote the two terms with partial derivatives as $$ -2\lambda\phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi = -\lambda \partial^\mu (\phi^2 \partial_\mu \phi)+\lambda \phi^2 \Box \phi $$ which gets rid of the total derivative. Then I used the EOM to replace $\Box \phi$ with $m^2 \phi$ to get $$ \mathcal{L}' = \mathcal{L}_0 + \lambda (m^2 - 1)\phi^3 + \lambda^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{3}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \phi^4 $$ Now this looks like a normal scalar field theory with a cubic and quartic vertex. Now it wants a tree level diagram for two to two scattering, so I should put these two vertices in all the combinations that have no loops and result in two in, and two out? Then subsequently work out the scattering amplitude from the said diagrams using the Feynman rules I put together with the above Lagrangian?


text:
Get inspired by this year's Natural Resources Defense Council awards that honor four active visionaries in healthy food, best practices and new ideas.
Get inspired by this year's Natural Resources Defense Council awards that honor four active visionaries in healthy food, best practices and new ideas.
It's not often that I'll watch an online video longer than two or three minutes. But this one, highlighting the fourth annual Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Growing Green awards, which celebrate pioneers of sustainable and fair-food practices, held my attention the whole way through and left me inspired and hopeful.
In case you don't have time to watch the whole thing, here are a few quotes from the Growing Green Awards 2012 winners.
Food Justice: Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Cofounders Lucas Benitez and Greg Asbed joined forces to set standards for human rights in agriculture, getting retail buyers of Florida tomatoes to pay a "fair-food premium" that enabled farm workers to receive "the first real increase in wages in over 30 years." Their goals? "We see our future a one of consolidating gains, institutionalizing fair food program, and that program being one of the keys for a better future for the tomato industry and workers."
Business Leader: George Siemon, CEO, Organic Valley CROPP Cooperative
Under Siemon's leadership (born of the countercultural '70s), Organic Valley has grown into the largest organic farming co-op in North America. "We started with one goal: to do it our way," says Siemon. "We decided early on if we're going to make organic products we ought to get our right price…. We were stubborn because it was a matter of pride; after years and years of a farm system not working, we wanted one that respected the value of organic foods."
Young Food Leader: Andrea Northup, DC Farm to School Network
This 26-year-old dynamo has "literally revolutionized how we eat in schools in D.C.," says a school-chef partner. By providing hands-on workshops, school kids get experience with the farming process. Northup also helps schools get grants to install salad bars and helped changed policy by working to get the Healthy Schools Act passed for all DC schools, which incentivizes schools to serve fresh produce and locally grown foods.
Food Producer: Gabe Brown, Brown Family Ranch, North Dakota
Under Brown's management, a worn-out farming and ranching landscape was brought back to life. "I think soil health is one of the most misunderstood and one of the least appreciated of our resources," he says. "So often the production model in agriculture, all it's about is treating symptoms. On our operation we've eliminated the use of synthetic fertilizers on our long-term, no-till soil; we've been able to regenerate that soil to the point where it's sustainable and produces the nutrients we need…. In doing so our operation became not just more profitable, but sustainable and healthier, for the resource and for us as human beings. This is what we need to do as a society to ensure that these resources are here for future generations."


text:
Winner of AgProfessional magazine's Readers' Choice 2011 Top Product of the Year award, Mix Tank from Precision Laboratories is now available for iPhone and Android smartphones.
Mix Tank is designed to assist agricultural applicators with the proper tank mixing sequence of crop protection products. Mix Tank also captures product use rates and application information with Mix Sheets and conveniently maintains accurate Spray Logs for easy record keeping. Download Mix Tank for free on the App Store and Google Play.


text:
U.S. Senate Wades Into Thorny 'Refugee' Question
Palestinian refugees, longtime pawns in regional and international struggles, have recently become a factor in American politics, as well.
An attempt by the U.S. Senate to define who exactly can be counted as a Palestinian refugee has pitted congressional Republicans and some Israel advocates against the Obama administration. The measure, an amendment to the defense spending bill presented by Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk, would require the State Department to report how many of the Palestinians served by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency were personally displaced in the 1948 war. Although the version that was finally [approved}(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501707_162-57444219/defining-a-palestinian-refugee-a-us-complication/) was watered down significantly, both sides believe it could eventually force the United States to make a concrete determination on the number of Palestinian refugees, which now ranges from 30,000, according to the minimalist approach, to 5 million, as official U.N. numbers suggest.
Beneath the political posturing lies the core question of defining the status of Palestinian refugees. A unique set of circumstances has allowed Palestinians to pass on their refugee status generation to generation, making for a rare, albeit not unheard of, case of a refugee problem that is growing in numbers instead of shrinking.
"At the root of this story is a dividing line between European and non-European refugees," said G. Daniel Cohen, a professor of history at Rice University who has written extensively on refugee issues. "The Palestinians," he added, "were the first test case for this division after World War II."
In the debate, which took center stage in May, each side clings to historical precedents supporting its claim.
For those who believe that refugee status should be given only to Palestinians who were personally displaced during the 1948 war, which led to the creation of the State of Israel, there are two key precedents: the plight of more than 12 million German refugees who were forced out of their countries of residence in postwar Europe, and the case of Indian and Pakistani refugees who were displaced following the partition of India in 1947. In both cases, refugees were resettled in their countries of residence without passing down the status to the next generations.
Pop Quiz: What do you call "descendants" of European refugees, Indian refugees, Pakistani refugees or Jewish refugees from the post-1945 or post-1948 turmoil? Answer: "Citizens of their respective lands," Gil Troy [wrote in The Daily Beast.
"Look at American Jews," added Asaf Romirowsky, a conservative researcher who has written extensively about the issue. "We're all refugees." Romirowsky is an adjunct scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Middle East Forum, two think tanks that actively advocate for limiting the definition of Palestinian refugee status.
But historic precedents work both ways. Supporters of a broader definition point to the Tibetan population in Nepal and to the scattered Kurdish population as communities that have maintained their refugee status beyond the first generation of being displaced or deprived of their own state. "Replace the word 'Palestinian' with 'Tibetan' and see what happens," a senior U.N. diplomat suggested. "Talk to the Dalai Lama and tell him Tibetans aren't refugees."
The Palestinian refugee problem dates back to the 1948 war. The creation of the State of Israel came after nearly two years of fighting between the Jewish population and the Arabs of Palestine, supported by surrounding Arab nations. According to estimates, some 650,000 to 800,000 Palestinians either fled or were forced out of their homes, never to be allowed back. Experts believe that 30,000 of those originally displaced are still alive.
Established in December 1949, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance to refugees residing in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. It was UNRWA that, for its own operational purposes, defined who would qualify as a Palestinian refugee. According to its definition, still in use today, "Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services."
By including descendants of Palestinian refugees in the list, the number of refugees ballooned to 5 million and, according to estimates, could reach 11 million by 2040.
U.N. diplomats explained that this definition is used mainly for practical reasons, in order to determine who is eligible for services provided by UNRWA in its five regions of operation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which deals with other displaced populations around the world, usually attempts to solve refugee problems by either returning refugees to their homes, absorbing them in their countries of residence or, in rare cases, resettling them in a third country. For Palestinians, the first option is impossible, since it is part of their dispute with Israel, and the second is impractical, due to resistance of the host countries that fear demographic and political destabilization if forced to absorb a large Palestinian population.
"There is a real fear, and it's expressed in various ways," said Paul Scham, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington and executive director of the University of Maryland Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies. In Lebanon and Syria, Palestinian refugees are kept in camps, and in Jordan they face discrimination. "There is certainly an extreme feeling in the East Bank circles that they don't want to accept the Palestinians who live there as full citizens," Scham said.
The debate over the count of Palestinian refugees was ignited by Kirk's amendment to the defense spending bill, which was approved unanimously May 24. The United States provides UNRWA with $250 million in funding a year, nearly a quarter of the agency's budget. Kirk's original language included a demand to change American policy to recognize as refugees only the first generation of Palestinians displaced from their homes. But fierce opposition from Democrats led to a softer version requiring only an administration report on the number of refugees.
Still, the Obama administration remained adamantly opposed to Kirk's amendment. In a letter to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides described the proposed amendment as a posing "a serious risk" to America's interests in the region. "It pushes the refugee issue to the fore at a particularly sensitive time," Nides wrote. In his letter, the deputy secretary of state referred to the 5 million Palestinians receiving services from UNRWA as "refugees."
For supporters of the Palestinian cause, the Kirk legislation is seen not only as yet another attempt to undermine UNRWA, an agency that has been in the crosshairs of congressional Republicans for years, but also as an effort to undermine any future Israeli- Palestinian peace process by predetermining the refugee question, which is one of the key issues to be discussed in a final-status solution.
"Ultimately, this is a political move," said Leila Hilal, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation. "What they really want is to pre-empt the right of return and the notion that Palestinians have any claim to their homes within Israel."
Supporters of narrowing the definition do not dispute this view. "What Kirk is trying to say is ,'Here is the cut-off date of the right of return,'" Romirowsky said.
But congressional action will do little to change the way refugees are viewed in any final-status arrangement. Hilal, who formerly served on the Palestinian negotiating team, said that Palestinian demands for resolving the refugee issue were never based on the definitions used by UNRWA. Rice University's Cohen agrees. Explaining that the Palestinian concept of refugees, whether it is for the purpose of the right of return or for future reparations, does not depend on how many refugees are recognized by the U.N. agency, he adds: "You can do away with UNRWA tomorrow, but the refugee issue will not cease to exist."
Contact Nathan Guttman at [email protected]


text:
OTTAWA — A brand of baby formula is being recalled in Ontario after Walmart shoppers in Brampton and Mississauga reported finding bottles that had been opened and resealed with tape.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says some bottles of Enfamil A+ Ready-to-Feed Infant Formula were found with the tamper-proof seals broken and the formula replaced with water.
The agency advises consumers to look carefully at bottles of infant formula, and to throw out or return any that may have been tampered with.
It says the advisory was triggered after three complaints but that no illnesses have been reported.
Walmart immediately removed the product from sale in the Halton and Peel regions of Toronto.
The food inspection agency says Walmart did not find any additional tampered bottles.


text:
Otto Piene's The Proliferation of the Sun at Stedelijk
After the impressive performance of The Proliferation of The Sun (1967) by ZERO artist Otto Piene during the Sonic Acts Festival 2015, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and Sonic Acts present the performance again in honour of the opening of the exhibition ZERO: Let Us Explore The Stars on Friday 3 July. The Proliferation of the Sun is a 25-minute multimedia performance, using hundreds of painted slides, sound, and several projectors. Colorful shimmering shapes on hand-painted glass slides are projected onto a huge multi-screen array, creating what Piene called a "poetic journey through space."
Otto Piene: Die Sonne kommt näher / The Proliferation of the Sun (1967) from Sonic Acts on Vimeo.
Friday 3 July 2015 Stedelijk Museum, Teijin Auditorium Time: 20:30-21:00 hrs and 22:00-22:30 hrs Free entrance (only limited seats available!) More information: www.stedelijk.nl/agenda/performance/otto-piene-the-proliferation-of-the-sun-1966--1967 From 4 July until 8 November 2015, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam presents a historic survey of the innovative, international avant-garde artists' group ZERO, with work by Otto Piene, Armando, Heinz Mack, Henk Peeters, Jan Schoonhoven, Günther Uecker, Lucio Fontana, Yves Klein, Piero Manzoni, Jean Tinguely, Yayoi Kusama, and others. Driven by the desire to seek radical new ways to make art, they shared an optimistic, experimental, and pioneering approach. More about the exhibition: www.stedelijk.nl/en/exhibitions/zero-let-us-explore-the-stars


text:
- Home
- Departments
- Municipal Court
- Initial Hearing Information
Initial Hearing Information
When your case is called you will be asked to step forward. You will be asked to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty or no contest. We will be handling the cases which intend to plead not guilty first. If you enter a plea of not guilty, our village prosecutor is present at the majority of our hearings and is available for pre-trial conferences. If you do not reach a settlement, the court clerk will schedule a trial date at which time both you and the Village of Little Chute will be able to present any witnesses or other evidence relating to your case (additional fees may be assessed).
The remaining cases will then be called individually. When your name is called, please come forward. You will be asked to enter your plea. If you plead guilty or no contest I will find you guilty, review the facts of the case, and impose the appropriate penalty. A plea of no contest is similar to a guilty plea, however a conviction arising from a no contest plea can't be used against you in a civil action.
Those of you who are facing traffic offenses should understand that you will accumulate demerit points upon conviction of most such offenses. If you accumulate 12 or more demerit points in any one-year period you will lose your license to drive in Wisconsin for a certain period of time.
If a forfeiture is imposed, be prepared to pay the full amount on the date of the hearing. If you fail to pay your forfeiture within 60 days, your driver's license will be suspended for a period up to two (2) years. In the case of non-traffic ordinance violations, the court may order confinement in the Outagamie County Jail in the event of non-payment.
Those of you charged with operating under the influence are entitled to request a jury trial in Outagamie County Circuit Court upon payment of the proper fees. All other cases will be handled in this court with the right to appeal my ruling to the circuit court level.
One additional point I do not have prior knowledge of cases coming before me. All differences are resolved within the framework of Wisconsin state statutes and Little Chute Village ordinances.


text:
I am developing a installable theme in wordpress I have created a contact form and called that form in footer but I want to create a widget that should be theme based mean i dont want any plugin.I can create a widget but for this i need to put the file in plugin folder that I don't want that should be completely theme based .
I want this because if I want to change the position of contact form like from footer to sidebar so for this I need to make this contact form widget that can be drag and drop in footer and sidebar.
I have searched this also on Internet but all are based on plugin directory so that Its not my requirement because it will activate whenever plugin will be activate but I need widget should activate whenever theme will be activate
Please provide me help or your suggestion I shall be very thankful to you Thanks


text:
Since its founding in 1929, Boston College Law School--one of the nation's premier Jesuit, Catholic legal institutions--has earned a national reputation for educational excellence and the highest standards of professionalism.
Boston College Law School (BC Law) is one of the six professional graduate schools at Boston College. Located approximately 1.5 miles from the main Boston College campus in Chestnut Hill, Boston College Law School is situated on a 40-acre (160,000 m2) wooded campus in Newton, Massachusetts.
With approximately 800 students and 125 faculty members, the Law School is one of the largest of BC's seven graduate and professional schools. Admission to BC Law is highly selective.
In addition to J.D., M.A. and Ph.D. programs, Boston College Law School offers joint degrees with BC's Carroll School of Management (J.D./M.B.A.), Graduate School of Social Work (J.D./M.S.W.) and Lynch School of Education (J.D./M.Ed.). Joint degrees in the humanities, fine arts, natural sciences and social sciences are offered with BC's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.


text:
Way back last year I stumbled across another writer who mentioned they were doing a charity anthology. 'What's that?' I said, 'A zombie anthology purely for charity?' Well of course, I did everything I could to get in contact with the man putting it together, the wonderful T.W.Brown. He said yes straight away and I set about writing my story. You see, I've always believed that you have to give back as much as you can in this world. You never know what is going to happen from one day to the next, and Cancer, that really ugly word right there is so much more than just a word to thousands and thousands of people. It's a death sentence. It's change. It's loss. It's suffering. I've been touched by cancer, both near and far, and each time I'm struck down by how brave people can be. I'm in awe of them. So this is me, doing what I can to help them fight, and with your help, I know it will make a huge difference. So buy the book, enjoy the stories by some of the most amazing zombie and horror talent around, spread the word, share the links and leave reviews. Every one of those things makes a difference, because every book we sell is more money to fight this. So let's fight this together. One last thing... Cancer, we're coming to get YOU! Buy your gore-fest here: UK links: Lets Scare Cancer To Death Ebook Lets Scare Cancer To Death Paperback USA links: Lets Scare Cancer To Death Ebook Lets Scare Cancer To Death Paperback Anthology Blurb: Cancer. For millions, there is no word that instils more fear. It is about time to give some payback. Enter a cadre of talented authors with a common purpose: to SCARE cancer to death. Okay, the premise may seem silly, but the truth is that these writers have all given their stories freely in hopes that you will be enticed to come check out this anthology. Every penny generated will be given in a quarterly check to The V Foundation for Cancer Research https://www.jimmyv.org. So, when you purchase this book, you are tossing your hat in the ring with people who are out to eradicate a killer that has touched far too many lives. Join us, and Let's Scare Cancer to Death! Participating authors: T.W.Brown Eli Constant Armand Rosamilia Mark Tufo Claire C Riley Julianne Snow Michael McFarland Blaze McRobb Rhonda Hopkins Heath Stallcup Chantal Boudreau Alyn Day T.Fox Dunham Catie Rhodes J.Thorn Gregory Carrico Lets Scare Cancer To Death Short Story Titles & Social Media Links Z Children by Eli Constant Twitter Facebook Website Blog Of the Dead by Alyn Day AlynDayOfTheDead Twitter Memories by Heath Stallcup Website Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Project Arizona by Gregory Carrico Website Facebook Twitter Goodreads Pinterest Amazon Author Page Just Life by T. Fox Dunham Website Goodreads Facebook Choices by Claire Riley Twitter Facebook Goodreads Website Amazon Author Page Dying Days Mortality by Armand Rosamilia Website Facebook Twitter Amazon Author Page Gift Wrapped Box by Catie Rhodes Website Twitter Facebook Goodreads Amazon Author Page Tunnel by J. Thorn JThorn.net Twitter Facebook Pinterest Google+ One Lonely Night by Chantal Boudreau Website Facebook Amazon Author Page Twitter Scribd Goodreads Sweet Release by Mark Tufo Amazon Author Page Website Facebook Uncle by Michael James McFarland Amazon Author Page Goodreads Facebook The Legacy by Julianne Snow Days with the Undead The FlipSide of Julianne Zombieholics Anonymous Amazon Author Page Facebook Author Page Twitter The Judas Contingent by Blaze McRob Website Goodreads Facebook Twitter Pen of the Damned Angelic Knight Press Visionary Press Collaborative My Name is Charles by TW Brown Website Facebook Amazon Author Page Survival by Rhonda Hopkins Website Addictive Reads Facebook Author Page Twitter Goodreads Google+ Amazon Author Page About The V Foundation For Cancer ResearchOUR STORY As I sit here in the UK, it's 9:30pm, I just checked the Amazon stats. I wanted to let you know how well the book is doing so far. As of right now, it's #7,937 Paid in Kindle UK Store
*** Feel proud because you helped that happen *** As always happy reading! Claire ♥ Leave a Reply. |
Subscribe To My BlogArchives
October 2017


text:
There comes a day when you have to let go of your children and send them out into the world. Hopefully if you have brought them up well, they will continue to grow and become better people.
I have decided it is time Donna left home. Born on October 20th 2005, she came into the world with a jar of peanut butter in one hand, a jar of nutella in the other. Since that day she has traveled the world spending time in Asia, America, Canada, Italy, New Zealand and Australia.
Like all young people she has done her fare share of youthful experimenting. She has tried them all - cupcakes, macaroons, biscuits, bruschetta, tarts, fritters, risotto, souffle, cheesecake, mousse, Caesar salad, sorbet, gnocchi, tarts again, terrines, pizza, coconut tarts, clafouti. No doubt there are more experiences she has in mind to try.
I said she could leave home but only if she bases herself with my good friend Bron Marshall. Bron is the earth mother I have never been. She has a garden, bakes everything from scratch, is kind to animals, has pets and home schools her children. I think Bron will be a good influence and help her to grow into someone pretty special.
Hay Hay Its Donna Day will continue. Bron will be overseeing things now. She will contact the winners and help them host each event and answer any questions you have.
It has been a privilege to introduce Hay Hay Its Donna Day to the world. I thank you all for helping her reach the stage where I am happy to let her go. I'm moving on to complete a couple of personal projects I've been working on recently. I'll still be around to enter events and keep a motherly eye on Hay Hay Its Donna Day.